9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness of development and maintenance of Computer Software and IT enabled services and is a 100% export oriented unit under STPI, Bangalore. For the relevant year, the return of income was filed on 24.09.2010 declaring an income of Rs.1,31,790/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the returned income. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act and scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was completed vide order dated 24.05.2012 assessing total income at Rs.66,60,310/-. The Assessing Officer reduced the claim of deduction u/s 10B by Rs.63,75,900/-. The Assessing Officer also added a sum of Rs.1,52,619/- u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(i)(va) of the Act.. 4. Aggrieved, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visaged u/s 10A. However, the benefit u/s 10A was not envisaged for such kind of middleman activity. The intention of the legislature for grant of special benefit u/s 10A granting Tax Holiday for a period of 10 years, pre empted the fact that assessee would put in place a comprehensive infrastructure which would enable that assessee to earn foreign exchange on a consistent basis for a long period of time and also further the reputation of the country in the field of Information Technology Enables Services (ITES). Such a Tax Holiday cannot be extended to any other assessee whose commitment to the line of business is rather shallow and may not reflect its intention to continue in the field beyond the period of Tax Holiday. It stands establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 and the same was followed by the CIT (A) in assessment year 2009-10 and in this relevant assessment year. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) and we uphold the same. It is ordered accordingly. Ground No.1 is rejected. 10. Ground no. 2 of the revenue reads as under :- "2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,52,619/- made by the A.O. on account of delay in payment of employees' contribution to EPF/ESI as per the provision of Section 36(1 )(va) read with 2(24 )(x), by following the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court (AIMIL Ltd.) and ignoring the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Limited, cited supra, has held as under :- "As soon as employees' contribution towards PF or ESI is received by the assessee by way of deduction or otherwise from the salary/wages of the employees, it will be treated as 'income' at the hands of the assessee. It clearly follows therefrom that If the assessee does not deposit this contribution with PF/ESI authorities, it will be taxed as Income at the hands of the assessee. However, on making deposit with the concerned authorities, the assessee becomes entitled to deduction under the provisions of s. 36(1)(va). Sec. 43B(b), however, stipulates that such deduction would be permissible only on actual payment. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
